Well, what can he say. Everyone before him pretty much said all that needed to be said.Jman said:Woah, woah, woah. Chill. I'm not here to star a war.
_________________________________________________
But at least Obama can speak. McCain's RNC speech was possibly his worst one yet in my opinion.
Eh, I guess we'll have to watch the debate tomorrow, without McCain there.
Jman out
Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
Depends on the issue. McCain/Palin are strictly pro-life... as such, they want the government to regulate and disallow abortions. Obama, on the other hand, wants everything to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Same thing with gay marriage.Bacon Boy said:Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
According to whom? You're going to get a different answer depending on who you ask. It's not a black and white issue... there's tons of grey in the middle. Hence why I don't think abortion should be completely banned and/or regulated by the government.Bacon Boy said:
ugh, please don't get me started on that...Bulerias said:Depends on the issue. McCain/Palin are strictly pro-life... as such, they want the government to regulate and disallow abortions. Obama, on the other hand, wants everything to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Same thing with gay marriage.Bacon Boy said:Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
I think you're talking about the economy and how Obama wants to do redistribution of wealth... but that's another topic.
Honestly lately I have been seeing almost a reverse of that thought. Republicans have been the ones butting government in places it doesn't belongs, although they do stop it from entering other areas, which leads to things like the crash on wall street. Government like everything in life is about moderation. That is why there are checks and balances, why the people vote, and why we have freedom, but at the same time responsibility.Bulerias said:Depends on the issue. McCain/Palin are strictly pro-life... as such, they want the government to regulate and disallow abortions. Obama, on the other hand, wants everything to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Same thing with gay marriage.Bacon Boy said:Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
I think you're talking about the economy and how Obama wants to do redistribution of wealth... but that's another topic.
On what, redistribution of wealth? I still don't know where I stand on that issue. It may be necessary (increase taxes on the rich, lower them for the poor), or there may be better solutions... I dunno...Bacon Boy said:ugh, please don't get me started on that...Bulerias said:Depends on the issue. McCain/Palin are strictly pro-life... as such, they want the government to regulate and disallow abortions. Obama, on the other hand, wants everything to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Same thing with gay marriage.Bacon Boy said:Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
I think you're talking about the economy and how Obama wants to do redistribution of wealth... but that's another topic.
but who are they to determine who's rich and who's poor. We might consider someone who has maybe about 10 grand rich, but the might consider someone who has 1mil rich. We might consider someone who has nothing to be poor, or someone who doesn't have a very big house, or an apartment, and they might consider someone with $100 rich. It's all perspective. Raising taxes is not what we need. We need to lower them, so people who CAN'T afford a decent home, can, or so someone who can't supply a regular amount of food for his children, can.Bulerias said:On what, redistribution of wealth? I still don't know where I stand on that issue. It may be necessary (increase taxes on the rich, lower them for the poor), or there may be better solutions... I dunno...Bacon Boy said:ugh, please don't get me started on that...Bulerias said:Depends on the issue. McCain/Palin are strictly pro-life... as such, they want the government to regulate and disallow abortions. Obama, on the other hand, wants everything to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Same thing with gay marriage.Bacon Boy said:Republicans are the less government ones. The Democrats are the more government ones.Bulerias said:Abortion is not a yes or no answer. Obama said it was "above his pay grade", correct? And you know, it is. If humans attempt to answer the "life begins at..." question, they're playing God. Only God knows when life/consciousness begins or when the soul enters the body. It's not for us to decide. What we do need, however, is less government regulation of things such as abortion and gay marriage. These things should be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Less government, more freedom, IMO.
...I'm beginning to sound like a libertarian.
I think you're talking about the economy and how Obama wants to do redistribution of wealth... but that's another topic.
Ah ha! Well despite Mccain constantly saying that Obama will rise taxes it just is not true for most people. In fact most people will save more money than under Mccain. Wealthier individuals will have to pay more taxes sure, but they can afford it, unlike Mccain Obama actual gave a figure for who he considers wealthy and that was $250,000 a year and honestly if you think you need more when making that you are ridiculous and in my opinion greedy. Heck I want to be a video game programmer or designer or whatever and it doesn't look like I can make more than 200,000 on income alone even with 10 years of experience. Is that enough to live on? Most definately and I would gladly pay more taxes to help our countries debt if I was making that kind of money.Bacon Boy said:
You do realize that we're there because of the higher taxes...Jman said:I'm back for moar.
For the taxes issue-
Let more poor people buy these houses that they can't even pay off? Isn't that where we are now? (not exactly, but the same idea)
